The Arminian misunderstanding of free will

            Do you believe that our salvation depends on the Almighty God alone? Or do you think that our salvation also depends on our independent choice? 

The way you answer the above two questions would determine if you are a Calvinist Christian or an Arminian. Christians who are Presbyterians (myself included), Reformed Baptists, and others who hold to Reformed confessions such as the Three Forms of Unity, are Calvinists. All who reject Calvinism such as the Wesleyan Methodists, Brethrens, and Roman Catholics, are Arminians. There is no middle ground, you are either a Calvinist Christian or an Arminian.  

Calvinist Christians believe that true believers are elected unconditionally by God who grants them irresistible grace to believe in Him. The elect will certainly attain salvation because God wills to save them and He will certainly preserve His elect that they will never lose their faith. Calvinist Christians believe in the absolute sovereignty and almighty power of God and therefore, we rightly believe that our salvation depends on our Almighty God alone. 

Arminians think that God has given man an independent choice to accept or reject faith and salvation. They think that God chooses as His elect those who will accept faith and salvation through their free choice. Therefore, Arminians think that salvation also depends on man. 

Some time ago, I read an online article where a Theology professor at an American university explained why he was an Arminian. From my understanding, the main reason he rejected Calvinism was his refusal to accept the Calvinist teachings on Predestination and free will. The professor thought that the Calvinist Christian position on the true biblical teaching of Predestination did not allow free will. Like all other Arminians, he thought that for a man to truly have free will, he must be able to freely and independently choose to accept or reject faith and salvation. However, Arminians are in error because firstly, they have a wrong understanding of free will and secondly, they have forgotten the truth that the will of God will certainly be done. 

Before I continue with this article, I would like to point out that Arminianism was condemned as a heresy during the Synod of Dodt of the Dutch Reformed Church in 1619. The Canons of Dodt (the five points of Calvinism or TULIP) from the same Synod was published to clarify the doctrine of Predestination. Presbyterians (myself included) and all other Calvinists take the same position taken by the Synod of Dodt, and we totally reject Arminianism as a heresy. I would also like to point out that Arminianism actually originated from Roman Catholicism because Arminian teachings are basically Roman Catholic teachings. Jacobus Arminus and his followers lived during the Protestant Reformation and would unsurprisingly be influenced by teachings of Roman Catholicism. 

To understand free will, we can read the ninth chapter of the Westminster Confession of Faith (On Free Will) that teaches about the four states of man first taught by the Church Father Saint Augustine of Hippo. The four states of man are: (i) state of innocency where man is able to sin and able to not sin (this is the state of Adam and Eve prior to the fall), (ii) state of sin where man is unable to not sin (this is our state before God grants us grace and faith to believe in our Lord Jesus Christ) , (iii) state of grace where man is able to not sin (this is our state after we believe in our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ), and (iv) state of glory where man is unable to sin (this is our state when we are in the Kingdom of Heaven). Our will depends on our nature while our nature depends on our state. 

Due to the original sin we inherited from Adam, we have a sinful nature, an inclination to sin that results in us certainly committing sins. The Apostle Saint Paul wrote in Romans 3:23 that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. Prior to the Almighty God granting us His grace and the saving faith to believe in Him, we were in the state of sin and everything we did, thought, and said were sinful. Were we forced or pressured to sin? Absolutely not! We freely chose sin instead of righteousness. We with our free will, were simply acting according to our sinful nature. Moreover, due to the total depravity of our sinful nature, we were totally unable to resist sin or do anything good. St. Paul wrote in Romans 8:7 that the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. We can understand from Genesis 6:5 that every imagination of the thoughts of man’s heart was only evil continually. Therefore, when a man is in the state of sin, he would certainly and naturally with his free will, reject faith and salvation. 

However, when the Almighty God grants us His grace and the saving faith to believe in Him, we enter into the state of grace. God grants us a new righteous nature so that we can now defy our original sinful nature and supernaturally with our free will, accept faith and salvation. This is a miracle. With our new nature, we are able to resist sin, to choose righteousness, and to do good. We must remember that because of the corruption and original sin that remain in us, we still have an inclination to sin and we still sin. However, contrary to the man in the state of sin, we now have a continuous war between our old sinful nature and our new righteous nature, between our old man and our new man. This war is described by St. Paul in the seventh chapter of his Epistle to the Romans. The war will end with a complete victory for our new righteous nature and our new man on the day we enter into the Kingdom of Heaven and the state of glory. This is the day when our original sin and all remaining corruption are completely removed. Without our old sinful nature, we will no longer be able to sin. Therefore, when we are in the Kingdom of Heaven and the state of glory, we with our free will according to our righteous nature, will only choose holiness and righteousness.  

We have now concluded that our free will depends on our nature, and no man in the state of sin will naturally with his free will ever accept faith and salvation. From here, we will consider the Arminian thinking that teaches the possibility of believers falling from the state of grace and therefore, losing their salvation. 

The seventeenth chapter of the Westminster Confession of Faith (on the Perseverance of the Saints) teaches that true believers who are elected unconditionally by God, will never fall from the state of grace and will never lose their faith and salvation. The perseverance of the saints can very clearly be seen in the Scriptures, for example, in John 10:27-29, Philippians 1:6, 2 Timothy 4:18, 1 Peter 1:5, and Jude 24. We must remember that we do not preserve our faith and salvation by our own will and ability. The Almighty God who elected us to be His people and wills to save us, will as written in 1 Peter 1:5, keep us by His power through faith unto salvation. Our Lord Jesus Christ taught us in John 10:28-29 that no man is able to pluck us (His elect) out of His hand and His Father’s hand. The will of God will certainly be done and if God wills to save us, we will certainly be saved. As written in Psalm 33:9, God spoke and it was done, and He commanded and it stood fast. Proverbs 21:30 also reminds us that there is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against God. Proverbs 16:9 teaches us that while a man’s heart devises his way, his steps are directed by God. Therefore, we conclude that the will and actions of man will never influence the will and Providence of God who has absolute sovereignty over all creation. 

Membership of the visible Church, regular attendance in worship services, and active participation in church activities do not make a man a true believer. Those not elected by God will never be true believers. God does not will to save those who He did not elect. Matthew 1:21 teaches us that our Lord Jesus Christ shall save His people from their sins. Very clearly, His people are all true believers who are elected unconditionally by God. Meanwhile, the man who is not a true believer does not lose his salvation because he is not saved at all and has never received salvation at any time. 

Therefore, we rightly conclude that our salvation depends on the Almighty God alone. The will of God will certainly be done and if He wills to save us, we will certainly be saved. God will certainly preserve us (His elect) that we will never lose our faith. Our free will and all our actions will never influence the will and Providence of God who has absolute sovereignty over all creation. 

We also conclude that Arminians are in error and their idea of free will is clearly unbiblical. In reality, by wrongly magnifying the ability of man such that man can freely and independently determine his own eternity, Arminianism does not believe in the absolute sovereignty and almighty power of God. We must reject Arminianism.   

Is the old English of KJV too difficult for modern readers?

        I have heard white people in England and America such as Mark Ward, rejecting the Authorised Version (KJV) on the grounds of old English, complaining that the KJV is not suitable for modern English reader and a barrier to evangelisation. The attitude and facial expressions they displayed while making the criticism actually betrayed the true reason of their rejection, that is their personal unreasonable and illogical antipathy and even hatred towards the KJV. Why is this hostility? We shall explain the reason later in this article. 

        ‘Old English too difficult to understand’ is not a logical reason but an excuse used by opponents of the KJV to reject the most accurate English translation of the Bible. We shall prove to the reader that this ‘old English’ excuse is both illogical and unreasonable.

        Firstly, the KJV revolutionised the English language, transforming mediaeval English into the modern form. Therefore, any modern English speaker would have little problem understanding the KJV. Read for example Psalm 1:1-2 and John 3:16 from the KJV, can you honestly say you have difficulty understanding?

Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.

But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.

(Ps. 1:1-2)

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

(Jn. 3:16)

        A modern English reader could quickly familiarise himself with the old English second person singular pronouns (thou, thee, thy), second person verb form (-est), and third person verb form (-th) by reading some verses of the KJV a few times.

        Secondly, the popular use of the second person singular pronouns (thou, thee, thy) was already decreasing when the KJV was first published. The same old English pronouns would gradually be replaced by the modern second person pronouns (you, your) during the seventeenth century. However, the translators of the KJV made the wise decision to keep those old English pronouns because both Hebrew and Greek differentiate between the singular thou and the plural you. This very reason would make the KJV more accurate than modern English versions. Consider Luke 22:31-32:

And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat:

But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.

(KJV)

31 “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you,[a] that he might sift you like wheat, 32 but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned again, strengthen your brothers.”

(ESV)

       Can you see a very significant difference in understanding should you miss the following ESV footnote that is usually placed at the bottom of the page? 

1. Luke 22:31 The Greek word for you (twice in this verse) is plural; in verse 32, all four instances are singular

       

        Thirdly, the English of the KJV was already becoming ‘old English’ by the end of the eighteenth century. That was long before universal education till the age of 16 was introduced in England in the twentieth century. If the KJV could be understood by the illiterate people and others who did not receive much education and who were living at a time before the introduction of universal education, the ‘old English too difficult to understand’ excuse made by those highly educated modern English readers is proven to be unreasonable and false.

        Fourthly, there would be no end if we go down the ‘easy modern English’ route. There would still be people who do not understand the English of the ESV, NIV, NASB, and other modern English versions. Should we use the NIrV in church so that the five year-olds attending the service could understand? And even if this is done, there may still be some immigrants who find the English of NIrV too difficult to understand. Therefore, the use of modern English versions clearly is not a logical and reasonable solution to the ‘old English too difficult to understand’ excuse.

        Fifthly, the KJV continues to be used by non-White Christians living in Asia and Africa. If the old English of KJV is not difficult for these Christians to understand, why are white British people living in England complaining?

        Sixthly, the KJV is well known for being easy to memorise. If modern English is really easier to understand, modern English versions should also be easier to memorise. However, it is also known that it is relatively more difficult to memorise verses from modern English versions. In fact, while the number of different modern English versions and their sales have massively increase over the last few decades mainly because of marketing, Bible literacy rate among Christians and church attendance have actually decreased during the same time. This point again prove that the claim ‘old English too difficult to understand’ is false.

        Therefore, it can be logically and reasonably concluded that the ‘old English too difficult to understand’ statement is an illogical and unreasonable excuse. 

        What is the true reason of the antipathy towards the KJV then?

        The KJV is the most accurate English Bible, faithfully translated from the Hebrew Masoretic Text of the Old Testament and Greek Textus Receptus of the New Testament, the true representatives of the Word of God in the original languages. The KJV represents an authoritative text, rightfully and majestically commanding us to conform to biblical teachings. The glorious light of the Word of God shines very brightly from the KJV.

        In absolute contrast, the New Testament of most modern English versions such as ESV, NIV, and NASB are translated from the ever-changing false Arian Modern Critical Text. Although the Old Testament of the same modern English versions are also from the Masoretic Text, the edition of the Masoretic Text they use is the work of Kittel, an antisemitic unbeliever. Meanwhile, the mentioned Modern Critical Text is a text constructed by unbelieving scholars using methods of higher criticism based on texts and manuscripts that were effectively lost for 1,400 years before they were discovered in the middle of the nineteenth century. For more information about the Modern Critical Text, read my article: Bethel: A treatise on the theological reasons to reject most modern Bible versions (bethel-sg.com). Modern English versions represent a flexible text, adjusted to suit the reader who is the authority. Therefore, many modern English versions such as ESV, NIV, and NASB are in reality, false Bibles that cannot be trusted.

        The Word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart (Hebrews 4:12). Opponents of the KJV are pricked in the heart because they subconsciously know that the KJV is the Word of God. This is the true reason why opponents of the KJV are showing an extreme antipathy towards the KJV to an extent that can be summarised by this statement 'any version but KJV'. 

        In conclusion, the old English of the KJV is certainly not difficult for modern readers.